










4V "^ . 










1 » « t • o - "^-^ < > 


















K» 







.-^^^ 





o >^ *??^T*' .^^ ^o •*T^- .o') '^^^ *^^f»* ^^^ 



• • 






y ^4., 








r ... 













/ \/^?^V V^^'/ \^^^v 






: .♦^':^. -.'^iji^** .3''>. 






\:'W-y V'^^-^-* v'-'^v V'^ 



• « 





























.*^ 



'^^.v 












"^.>%'i' 



■^.^"^ 












.v\.i5^..V ./.'A-i:./^^ ..^\v:»<^..% „4?\.t; 



^•^r 



■*-.,^* 






"■^^^ 










'%/ 



DUTIES OF MASTEES AND SLAVES 
EESPECTIVELY : 



DOMESTIC SERVITUDE AS SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE: 



A DISCOURSE, 



DELIVEItED 



IN THE GOVERNMENT-STREET CHURCH, MOBILE, ALA, 



BY KEY. \Y. T. KAMILTOX, D. D., 



Pastor of said Church. 



ON SUNDAY NIGHT, DECEMBEE 15, 1844. 



MOBILE: 

PUBLISHED BY F. H. BROOKS, 

V/HOLESALE BOOKSELLER. 
1845. * 



\h\w 



'01^ 



u 






z \ :> 






THE DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SLAYES. 



CoLOSs. 4:1. " Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that 
ye also have a Master in heaven." Compare Ephes. 6 : 9. 

Fully aware though I am, that the subject I have proposed for 
discussion to-night is one of no ordinary delicacy, and of no little 
difficulty, on many accounts, yet its importance is such, that I think it 
ought to be discussed fully and without reserve. Nor can the discus-^. 
I sion, if discreetly conducted, fail to be beneficial to all parties. It is 
not to be disguised, that the existence of domestic servitude among us 
attracts a large share of attention from the citizens of other States where 
it is no longer /ound. This subject is agitating the country from one 
extremity to the other. In the non-slaveholding States, it has produced 
a great excitement among all classes. It has already given birth to a 
political party, which is daily increasing in strength and influence, — 
and whose spirit is such as to show that they will never rest, and will 
leave no stone unturned, until, for the accomplishment of tfieir purpose, 
they have convulsed the whole country. A like spirit has invaded the 
church, and has already produced, in more than one ecclesiastical body, 
stormy discussion and stringent measures, which threaten disruption to 
the church, and bitter animosity in its dissevered fragments, instead of 
harmony and love. The great body of the Methodist persuasion has 
been shaken to its centre by this perplexing subject. Nor has our own 
beloved church escaped without agitation, and imminent hazard of a 
second great schism, on this ground. Nor let us deceive ourselves by 
the idea that all this is the work of a few, a very few rash, ill-informed, 
and pestilent agitators. It is a very easy thing to class them all toge- 
ther as hot-headed abolitionists and crazy fanatics ; but to do so is not 
wise : the averment is not true. I admit that there is a very active, 
determined, and persevering set of men, the thorough-blooded abolition- 
ists, who go all lengths in denunciation against the whole South, and 
against every man who lives here ; and who seem prepared to attempt 
the extirpation of servitude among us, regardless of consequences. I 



4 

grant too that these, the prime movers in all the measures of the party, 
whether political or religious, are few in number. These ultra aboli- 
tionists arefeiD, but they are resolute and reckless. 

"With some of this class it was my lot, during my late tour at 
the North and East, to come in contact; and my deliberate opinion 
is, that they are craiy quoad hoc. They are monomaniacs ; labouring, 
on one subject, under a delusion which renders their minds impervious 
to reason. In my intercourse with them, (for, to avoid them was not 
always possible,) I have been saluted by epithets neither flattering nor 
courteous. They have, publicly and privately, through the newspapers 
and by private letters, denounced me as a thief, a ruffian, a villain, a 
hypocritical oppressor of the d fenceless ; as one %cho approaches the 
very altar of God, to solemnize the deepest mysteries of religion, with 
hands stained and reeking with the blood of the victims of a cruel 
oppression. And why ? because, and simply because, I live in a slave- 
holding community ; I minister to a church most of whose members 
hold slaves; — and instead of teaching my flock that in so doing they 1^ 
are guilty of grievous sin and must be all damned for ever unless they, 
at once, set all their slaves free* I am supposed to be myself a slave- 
hold^, and as such, a partner and abettor of their crime.\ Well ! at all 
this, bad as it is, we might calmly smile, were this the extent of the 
evil. But these rabid advocates of universal equality and of immediate 
emancipation are but a very insignificant portion of that great body of 
American citizens, who look upon slavery with disapprobation and 
abhorrence. | There are thousands of thousands in our country, utterly 
opposed to the violent spirit of Garrison and his followers, who yet look 
upon this institution as evil, altogether evil, — based on wrong, and most 
injurious in its tendency ; — who contend that it must be extirpated 
sooner or later, and that it ought to be removed at the earliest possible 
moment that shall be found compatible with safety. And among these, 
there are certainly some of the clearest and coolest heads, as well as of 
the purest hearts, that this country can boast. 

Grave and learned divines, intelligent lay officers of the church, 
nay, dignified ecclesiastical bodies, have, by the passage of solemn reso- 
lutions entered on their permanent records, pronounced slaveholding 
to be a deadly sin, inconsistent with all pretensions to piety ; whereupon, 
they expressly debar from their pulpits all slaveholding ministers, and 
all pastors of slaveholding churches ; and they shut out from the com- 
munion-table, and from the church of God, any and every slave-holder. 
These men may be mistaken ; but they are, beyond all question, sincere 
and deeply in earnest. Again and again, I myself have been shut out 



from palpits, which my warm personal friends were desirous I should 
occupy. I have been reftised subscriptions to our Bethel church, be- 
cause it was to be erected in a slave-holding citv : and, on one occasion, 
after having, on the Sabbath, by invitation from the pastor, preached in 
a certain church, and assisted at the communion-table, I was a few 
days afterwards, insulted, by the thnisting into my hands of a set of 
resolutions, (duly attested as having been passed at a church meetintr,) 
expressive of their abhorrence of slavery and of slaveholders, and ex- 
pressive also of their conviction that deep repentance and humiliation 
of spirit before God were required of them, for the ^rfot sin of having 
recognized a slave-holder as a Christian and a Hiinister, and attended 
on the dispensation of the word and ordinances at his hands. These 
resolutions I still have in my possession. 

All these several considerations combine to place this matter in a 
very serious light. If these men are right, then we are wrong : and if 
so, then the southern portion of the church is guilty of a great sin. 
and her ministers are guilty of a still greater sin, in that thev not onlv 
forbear to denounce the institution as sinful, and forbear to call upon 
their hearers to repent of it, and to bring forth finits meet for repentai|:e, 
by setting all their slaves free at once, but in that they also participate 
m the guilt of it, as well as connive at it ; since ministers, no less than 
others, employ slaves as servants ; and whether those slaves be tbeir 
own property or merely hired, whether obtained by inheritance or pur- 
chase, matters not, ai to the principle involved. If to hold slaves be a 
sin, ministers of the gospel ought to know it; and knowing it, they 
ought to teach it, no matter what might be the legal penalties, or the 
personal hazard, of so doing. Your laws can never render murder, 
adultery, theft, or Sabbath-breaking right, because God's word torbids 
these crimes : and God's authority is paramount. Before Heaven's 
decisions mere human law must bow. If, then, God's holy word con- 
demns slavery, the minister of God is bound to condemn it, and to call 
on his hearers to clear themselves of all participation in it, whatever be 
the risk attendant on so doing : for what God condemns, human law 
can never make right. 

If, on the contrary, God's holy book does not condemn domestic 
senritude ; if, so far from this, it does distinctly recognize the instits- 
tion. and lay down directions for the conduct of Christians in both or 
in either of the relations, as masters or as servants, then the institwtigm 
is not, in itself and necessarily, sinful, whatever may be the evils indi- 
viduallv connected with it, or springing from it. If so. then a man may 
be a servant, or he may be the owner of many servants, and still be a 



true Christian, a worthy communicant in the church of God; nay, he 
may be a faithful and useful minister of the gospel. If so, then the 
oTound assumed by so many Christians and ecclesiastical bodies at the 
North and the West, in excluding us from their pulpits and from 
their communion, simply on this one ground, is untenable, and ought 
to be abandoned. The men who take such ground may be in error, 
and we, who sincerely believe them to be so, may deplore their error, 
yet we cannot but respect their consistency and their zeal. Our part 
should be, to exhibit equal firmness, with a gentler spirit ; by no means 
returnino- railinor for railing, but contrariwise, forbearance and magna- 
nimity. 

But, inasmuch as it is undeniable that by these men our ecclesias- 
tical standing, our piety, our sincerity, our very honesty as men, are all 
called into question, I have thought it but right to request your attention 
to a public discussion of this subject, which I shall aim to present in 
the light furnished by the Bible, and with all the plainness which the vast 
importance of the subject, and the weighty duties this relation imposes 
upon masters, seem to demand. 

1 1 take the ground distinctly and emphatically, that domestic servi- 
tude as found among us at the South (however undesirable it may be in 
some respects) is not, in itself, sinful. The Bible plainly recognizes 
it; and the sin op slavery (for there is much sin attending it) springs, 
not from the nature of the relation, but from the neglect of duty 
IN THE MASTER. The Command of God is, " Masters, give unto your 
servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a 
Master in heaven .'"I 

Some have ventured to assert, that the text and other similar direc- 
tions and like allusions found in various parts of the New Testament 
and the Old, do not necessarily imply slavery, properly speaking; be- 
cause those designated as servants may have been hired labourers ; and 
those called masters, merely the employers ; just as it is now in British 
families, and in those of our Eastern and Northern States. But no 
competent judge, no one with the least pretensions to scholarship, will, 
for one moment, hesitate to admit, that slavery in its most despotic form 
existed among the ancient Greeks, the Romans, and even among the 
Jews. Nor can it be denied that the word servant does, in the New 
Testament, denote a slave, a person held as property by another ; and 
that the word master denotes one who holds certain of his fellow-men in 
bondage, just as those terms are now used among us. Now the text, 
thus distinctly recognizing the existence of slavery, does as plainly im- 
ply the compatibility of holding slaves, and yet being a Christian; for 



it is addressed to members of a Christian church at Colosse, and it 
addresses them as masters of slaves, and tells them their duties as mas- 
ters. Here then we have, from the pen of an inspired Apostle, and 
written some years after the ascension of Christ, and after the day of 
Pentecost and the full establishment of the Gospel-church, an address 

directed to a church regularly organized under Apostolic authority; 

and the very terms in which this address, is couched show, that in that 
church, founded, governed, and instructed by Apostles themselves, were 
both masters and slaves. The relation is spoken of as existing, as well 
known and understood. Not one word of condemnation is here found, 
not a hint of its being wrong to be a master, or of its being an intolera- 
ble oppression to be a servant; but it is emphatically said, "Masters 
ought to treat their servants so and so." The inference is plain : slave- 
holding is not in itself sinful; since, if a master treat his slaves as 
•Jierein required, he discharges his whole duty as a master; he may 
continue a master, continue to hold slaves so treated, and yet be a good 
man, and a worthy member of the church of Christ: which could not 
be, were slave-holding sinful in the sight of God. 

Tell us not that the Apostles connived at slavery, because it was 
rooted in the usages of society and protected by law ; because the 
community was not yet sufficiently enlightened to receive the whole 
truth on that subject, and because it would have perilled the very exist- 
ence of the infant church to declare the real wickedness involved in 
slavery ; and that, therefore, on the ground of expediency/ the Apostles 
wrote as they did, apparently sanctioning, what they really condemned ! 
What ! Are we to believe that the Apostles, the founders of the Christian 
church, the very men who counted not their lives dear " for the sake of 
truth and righteousness," suffered themselves to be deterred from a plain 
duty by fear of consequences ? Are we to believe that they, who en- 
dured every hardship, braved every danger, and finally shed their blood 
to advance the cause of truth and goodness in the world, would, from 
dread of the consequences of denouncing it, tolerate in the infant 
churches they formed as models for the church in all ages, a sin so re- 
plete with evil, so enormous and so damning, as hot abolitionists now 
represent slaveholding to be ? No man in his senses can believe this ! 
The Apostles certainly addressed slaveholders in such terms as show 
that they regarded their position as masters, and their duty as Chris- 
tians, as not at all inconsistent. If honest men, the Apostles would 
not thus directly sanction what they believed to be wrong. If, in writ- 
ing their epistles to the churches, the Apostles were inspired of God, 
then it is plain, that not only did they honestly deem that the master of 



!;laves micrht be a true Christian, but their decision is a sound one ; 
and they who now assert that slaveholding is in itself wrong, are assum- 
ing to be wiser than inspired Apostles, and more benevolent than God 
himself. If God did not, by revelation through the Apostles, teach us 
that slavery is wrong, and therefore to be abolished, (as he clearly did 
not,) then has God no where taught this : for the Apostles were the 
last men ever found on earth, on whom the spirit of inspiration rested. 
The zealous friends of immediate and universal abolition, on the ground 
that slavery is sinful, must first bring proof, clear and indisputable, that 
thev are inspired of God himself to teach this new doctrine, ere we 
can consent, at their bidding, to discard the teachings of the Apostles 
of Jesus Christ, and repudiate as utterly sinful, an institution which the 
Apostles unequivocally recognized as existing in the churches they 
themselves founded, and as not inconsistent with true piety and the 
hope of a home in heaven. So plainly does the Bible contemplate the 
existence of domestic servitude — even in the church — and by its laws 
provide for its due regulation, and for the correction of abuses likely to 
spring from it, that a zealous abolitionist lately addressed me thus : — 
" Prove to me from the Bible that sloveri/ is to be tolerated, and I zcill 
trample t/our Bible under my feet, as I icould the vilest reptile on thf 
face of the earth." Such language flows, not from humanity, but 
from a ferocious pride ; not from reason, but from madness ; not from 
piety, but from the very spirit of infidelity. 

The plain matter of fact is, that there ever has been, and there must 
be, great inequality in the condition of men. The rich and the poor, 
the powerful and the feeble, the daring and the timid, are every where 
found among men. In all communities there are superiors and infe- 
riors, the successful and the unsuccessful, the leaders and the led. Could 
you, to-morrow, reduce all men to one uniform and perfect level, in 
condition, in property, and in privileges, not a week would pass away 
without producing changes utterly destructive of perfect equality. The 
prudence of some and the follies of others would have already wrought 
changes ominous of a speedy return to the ordinary condition of society, 
with all its diversity of ranks and conditions. The bold would overawe, 
the cunning would outwit their neighbours, the sagacious and enero-etic 
would accumulate property, and with it power. Masters and servants 
would, in some form, speedily be found in society as before. 

In very early times, when society began to increase in numbers, the 

turbulent passions of men plunged them into conflicts one with another, 

and the successful parties compelled the vanquished to submit to their 

^ control. When wars at length arose, those who fell into the power of 



9 

the victors were put to death. Afterwards, the couqueror aometimes 
spared the lives of those falling into his power, bat only to reserre them 
for hi? own service, or to secure the price they mi^ht brinor when sold 
to others. Hence the origin of slavery. Captives taken in war were, 
doubtless, the first slaves : and the lot of seiritude was entailed by in- 
heritance on all their descendants. Hence we find traces of the exist- 
ence of slavery, even fi-om the earliest times. Nimrod, the mighty- 
hunter, is often asserted to have been the first slaveholder. Gen. 10 : 9. 

Certain it is that long before the time of Moses, slavery existed. 
Abraham had slaves, and many of them. There were of this class. 
bom in his house, no less than 300 capable of bearing arms. Gen. 14 : 
14. Hagar, the maid of Sarah, whom her mistress surrendered to 
Abraham in hope of an heir, was an Egyptian slave, Gen. 16 : 3 ; and 
Ishmael, her son, was by birth a slave also, in contradistinction from 
Isaac, who was born free, being the son of a free mother. This ad- 
mitted fact, " Hagar gender eth to bondage — she is in bondage with her 
children^' is the basis of the Apostle's comparison, between the law 
and the gospel, Gal. 14 : Ol-^G. 

The patriarch Joseph was sold by his treacherous brethren, a slave to 
the Ishmaelite merchants, and by them he was conveyed into Egypt, and 
there resold to Potiphar. A Xew years later, under the administration of 
Joseph, as prime-minister to Pharaoh, the whole Egyptian nation having 
alienated their lands to the crown, to procure the means of sustenance, 
next sold their personal freedom, and became a race of hereditary serfs, 
appertaininor to the soil, and passing with it from owner to owno'. 
Later still, the whole race oi Israel, from the condition of protected 
guests, were degraded to that of slaves to Egypts monarchs ; they were 
compelled to work, not for their own advantage, bat at the bidding. 
and for the profit oi their taskmasters. Samson, when captured bv 
the Philistines, was redac-ed to the rank of a slave : compelled to labour 
hard, or to make rude sport, at the pleasure of his masters. The little 
Hebrew maid, who, in the time of the prophet Elisha (2 Kings, 5 : 2) 
waited upon her mistress, the wife of Naaman, the Syrian leper, was a 
slave, a captive taken in war. 

Unquestionably were most of the ancient heathen nations around 
the Jews holders of slaves. Such were the Midianites, the Egyptians, 
and the Canaanitish tribes. We read that Pharaoh bestowed sundry 
gifts upon Abraham, among which were slaves. " He entreated Abra- 
ham tcell. for Sarah's sake ; and he had sheep, and ozen, and he-asses, 
and men-sertants and maidservants.'' Gen. r2 : 16. Abimelech also 
" took sheep, and oicn, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and gate 



10 

them to Abraham." Gen. 20 : 14. It is certain, then, that Abraham, 
the great progenitor of the Hebrew nation, and the friend of God, was 
a large slaveholder. He seems to have held slaves by inheritance, for 
he had several hundreds born in his family ; he received some, as gifts, 
from powerful friends, and others he had, bought with his money. Gen. 
17:23; (see also vs. 12. 13.) And yet,— "/a^Aer of the faithful" 
though he is styled in God's word, — were Abraham now living among us, 
with all his slaves around him, sealed though they were in God's own 
covenant by divine command, he would, by modern abolitionists, be 
excluded from the church, as a cruel, selfish, hard-hearted man, a 
bloody-handed man-stealer. 

Moreover, not only was slavery tolerated of heaven in the household 
of Abraham, but by the laws given to the Jews by Moses, it was ex- 
pressly allowed, and placed under certain definite restrictions. From 
Levit. 25 : 39-46 we learn, that between the native Hebrew and the 
gentile, a marked distinction was established, in relation to this subject. 
A Hebrew might, through stress of poverty, sell his personal liberty ; 
but he could not be made a slave. He might bind himself to render 
service for many years, but he served as one hired, not as a slave ; 
and on the return of the year of jubilee, he had his freedom restored to 
him in full. But in regard to the heathen, the case was different. The 
Jew was allowed by the laws of Moses to purchase men of heathen or 
gentile origin, as slaves ; to hold them as a possession, as property ; 
and a servant of this class was called his master's money, i. e. his pro- 
perty, insomuch that though, if when chastising a servant, that servant 
should die under his hand, the master subjected himself to a certain 
penalty ; yet, if the servant so beaten should linger for a day or two, 
and then die, the master who smote him shoul.d not be punished ; for, 
(says the Hebrew legislator,) that servant is his master's money. Exod. 
21 : 21. Whatever modern abolitionists may say respecting it, the 
Mosaic law, (which all Christians believe to have been given by in- 
spiration from God himself,) allowed the most pious Jew that ever lived, 
to purchase slaves, and to hold them, and treat them as property. 
That is, the God of heaven did in times of old allow men to make 
merchandise of their fellow men, of beings made in the image of God. 
These gentile slaves, thus bought and held as property by the Jews, 
might be given to other Jews as presents, or sold, or bequeathed to 
their heirs as a possession. For the bondage of these gentile slaves 
was perpetual ; — " They shall he bondmen for ever" Levit. 25 : 46; i. e. 
they and their descendants were a race of hereditary servants, as ours 
are now. 



11 

To the servant of Jewish birth the year of jubilee brought full re- 
storation to freedom ; to the servant of gentile origin the jubilee itself 
brought no discharge. The Hebrew servant was, like our hired labour- 
ers, or rather like a modern apprentice, or like a German redemptioner, 
held to service only for a limited period ; the heathen slaves amono- the 
Jews, were, like our negro slaves, held in bondage for life, with a 
reversion of like servitude to all their descendants, for ever. 

Nor were the ministers of religion debarred from the right of hold- 
ing men in servitude. Thus we read, Levit. 22 : 10. Jl, "A sojourner 
with a priest, or his hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing, 
(i. e. the flesh offered in sacrifice,) but if the priest buy any soul with 
HIS J^ONEY , he shall eat of it ; and he that is born in his house 
they shall eat of it." Here, then, the distinction between hired serv- 
ants and slaves, purchased or inherited, is clearly laid down ; and slaves 
no less than hired servants, are supposed to be included in the family- 
establishment of the very ministers of God, the priests officiating at the 
altars of religion. It seems, then, that Moses, the great lawgiver of the 
Jews, who talked face to face with God, did not think that holding 
slaves polluted a man's hands with blood, or disqualified him for serv- 
ing acceptably in the awful solemnities of religion. 

As surely, then, as Moses wrote by divine inspiration, did God himself 
sanction among the Jews, the tolerance of slavery, including the buying 
and selling of human beings, with their descendants, into perpetual 
bondage. What God sanctions cannot be in itself, and essentially, evil. 
Moreover, the laws which God enacted for the treatment of slaves, and 
the privileges he authorized to be extended to the slaves of his cove- 
nant-people show, that God looks upon the condition of a slave, (wholly 
dependent though he be on the pleasure of his master, for his personal 
comforts,) as not inconsistent with the service of God, and with the 
hope of salvation. 

But in reply to this argument drawn from the Mosaic law, it is often 
urged — " The tolerance of slavery in the Jewish church, furnishes no 
argument to prove that slavery is lawful note ; because polygamy was 
tolerated in that ancient church, and yet no one contends for polygamy 
now ! If we may hold slaves now because Abraham held slaves, and 
any Jew, hoioever pious, might hold them, then we must authorize poly- 
gamy now, too, because Abraham, and Jacob, and David, all good men 
and approved of God, had each of them many wives .'" 

But to this I answer, the cases are not parallel. Whatever God has 
once sanctioned cannot be, in itself, and essentially, wrong. God did 
once sanction the existence of slaveholding and of polygamy both ; and 



12 

unless God have withdrawn that sanction, and condemned one or the 
other of these practices, both must be still lawful to this hour. In the 
case of polygamy, God has withdrawn that sanction, and declared it to 
be adultery for a man to have more than one wife at the same time. 
In the case of slaveholding, God has not withdrawn his sanction under 
the gospel. On the contrary, he has renewed that sanction, by pre- 
scribing, through his inspired Apostles, the rules by which masters and 
servants, even when members of the church of Christ, are to regulate 
their intercourse one with another. 

If, instead of declaring, as he has done, that ^' iDhosocver putteth 
away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, and marrieth an- 
other, committeth adultery,'' (and this surely condemns polygamy, for 
it .is not the putting moay of a wife that constitutes adultery, but the 
taking of a second wife while the first is living. Unless, indeed, we 
would maintain that a man may take a second and a third wife in 
addition to the first, and be no adulterer, so long as he keeps them all ; 
but the moment he repudiates the first, his taking of a second renders 
him an adulterer, which were certainly absurd ;) if, instead of this, God 
had given directions in the New Testament, how a Christian husband 
should treat his household of three or four or more wives, and how 
those three or four wives of one and the same Christian husband should 
treat that husband, just as the Apostles have laid down directions to 
show how Christian masters should treat their slaves, and how Chris- 
tian slaves should conduct themselves toward their masters, then we 
should unhesitatingly admit, that now, just as in the days of Abraham 
and of Solomon, a man may have several wives and yet be a good 
Christian, and just as now he may have many slaves, and yet be a truly 
pious man. As it is, polygamy and slavery were, in the Jewish church, 
both allowed ; but under the gospel polygamy is condemned ; slave- 
holding is still recognized as lawful ; and appropriate rules are laid 
down for the guidance of Christian masters and of Christian servants. 
" Masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal; know- 
ing that ye also have a Master in heaven." 

But it is objected again, " The servants spoken of in the New 
Testament, could not have been like our negro slaves, held in involun- 
tary bondage ; they must have been either hired servants, or else per- 
sons bound by voluntary contract, to servitude for a limited period, like 
our apprentices ; or, possibly, in some cases, bound to serve for the 
period of their natural lives. It could not have been a hereditary 
bondage, like modern slavery ; because all claim to hold such slaves, 
is founded on oppression and injustice. The original title to property 



13 

in the slaves of this class must have been defective ; and no lapse of 
time, no repetitions of transfer from one to another, can ever make that 
title good. The original title must have been fraudulently obtained, 
and however often transferred, it is, and it must ever be, still invali- 
dated by the fraud involved in its origin. It is an admitted axiom, that 
' the receiver of stolen goods, is as bad as the thief.' He who first 
made his fellow man a slave, was a man-stealer; he was guilty of op- 
pression and robbery .: the first purchaser of such slave, became in the 
very act of purchase, a participator in the guilt of his reduction to 
slavery ; and with every transfer of title, was transferred also the guilt 
of that original theft. A man who holds his fellow man in involuntary 
bondage is, therefore, and must ever be, an oppressor, and a man- 
stealer. Now the Apostles declare, that ' men-stcalers shall not inherit 
the kingdom of God ;' consequently the masters to whom the Apostles 
wrote, were not men-stealers ; they were not slaveholders in the modern 
sense of the word." 

The answer to this objection is obvious. If the reasoning here 
employed be correct, that all involuntary bondage is the fruit of oppres- 
sion, and that every slaveholder is a man-stealer, then it must be con- 
ceded that, under the Old Testament dispensation, God did sanction 
oppression and man-stealing ; for he did expressly permit the purchase, 
the holding, and the sale of men held to involuntary and perpetual 
bondage ; and bondage entailed on their descendants. And yet, both 
in the Old and the New Testament, God does condemn man-stealing 
as a crime fatal to all profession of piety. Unless then we choose to 
charge God with injustice and inconsistency both, we must admit that 
slaveholding does not necessarily involve guilt of any kind ; that a man 
may lawfully hold his fellow man in involuntary bondage, without beino- 
thereby stained with guilt of robbery, oppression, or injustice, and the 
title to property in slaves may be held and conveyed to others, without 
the attendance or conveyance of the guilt of any crime. If this mio-ht 
be true in Abraham's day, and in the days of the Jewish Judges and 
the Jewish Kings, it may be true also in our own day. Certain it is, 
that in the times of the Apostles of Jesus Christ, this must have been 
true. The masters addressed by the Apostles in the New Testament, 
are by them supposed to be capable of discharging their duty as masters 
and of being good Christians nevertheless. A man-stealer (as these 
s?ime Apostles teach, see I Tim. 1 : 10; comp. also Exod. 21 : 16, and 
Deut. 24 : 7) cannot be a good Christian ; therefore, if inspired Apos- 
tles judged correctly, these masters were certainly not men-stealers. 
But these masters were most unquestionably slaveholders, in the fullest 



14 

sense of the word as now used. This all the records of antiquity show. 
Of the servants of these masters, some they held by inheritance, some 
thev had bought with money, just as slaves are now bought or inherited. 
Masters in the days of the Apostles had also a much more absolute 
power over their servants than we now have over our slaves. They 
held them as their property, they could sell them, or bequeath them by 
will, or they could by deed of gift, convey to others their title in their 
servants : and thev could punish them for their faults, all just as we can ; 
nav thev could do what we have no power to do, for under certain cir- 
ctimstances masters could punish their servants with death. This is 
the kind of slavery existing, under the Roman governments, in the 
countries where Christian churches were established by the Apostles ; 
nav existing in those very churches, with the knowledge and the sanc- 
tion of the Apostles. Thus to hold slaves was, therefore, not equivalent 
to man-stealing, in the days of the Apostles : if not then, neither is it 
now. To be a slaveholder, as slavery exists in these Southern States, is 
not. therefore, at all inconsistent with Christian character, if only the 
duties of a master be rightly performed on Christian principles. 

A parent has almost unlimited power over his children. He has 
patctr to brins them up well or ill, to train them up virtuously or 
viciouslv. to make them happy or miserable. The mere possession of 
this power does not make him a tyrant, or a bad man. If the parental 
power be exercised on Christian principles, the strictest father may be 
a true Christian. The power to do a thing, and the right to do it, are 
two quite different things, and do not always go together. 

The possession of power certainly implies the possibility of its abuse ; 
and the abuse of power it is, that gives rise to the evils attendant on 
slaver V. Hence the propriety of rules furnished in the word of God, 
for directing the conduct of parents and of masters in the exercise of 
their power in a right manner. 

Slavery implies the possession by the master of a power over the 
servant, which may be abused to his detriment ; and therefore the rule, 
" Masters give unto your servants that ichich is just and equal," &c. 

The command to do justice implies the possession of patcer, but 
not of right, to treat unjustly and to withhold that which is equal. 

Another objection is often urged against the whole institution of 
slavery, and urged even by good and discreet men, to this effect : — 
" Slavery, though it may not be expressly forbidden in the Bible, nay, 
though it may seem to receive indirect sanction from the niles there laid 
down, is so manifestly contrary to the great law of love, that it cannot 
be right to uphold it. Just so far as true religion, which teaches us 



15 

to do unto others as vet \tould they should do uuto us; shaO prevail 
among men, must the abuses of this iustitutioa become wutniftst, and had 
to its extirpation. It foUotes, therefore, that no good wum can he. a 
friend to slarery ; and the. church is bound to attempt the. remooal mf it 
at one t, just as certainly as benevolence is a Christian dtitu." 

This objection presents a siiiOTlar coimniitare of truth aad enor. 
In a certain modified sense the objectioo may be deemed Taiid. The 
direct tendency of religion is to eradicate rice and to correct all abodes ; 
and so far as true religion prerails will men discern the abmts attendant 
on alarerv — and abhor them, and anempt their remoraL Bat the <Ause 
of a thing is no part of the thing itself. The more ext^tsiTeij true 
religion prevails in Southern society, the more will masters use their 
power for the good of their slares ; and inasmuch as pow» (ia the 
hands of beings so imperfect as men are) is always liable to ab^e, true 
benevolence would lead masters to employ every safe and practicable 
means for improving the condition and elevating the character of ser- 
vants, with a view to their complete emancq>ation, whenever that can 
be effected without detrimait to them, and with safeiv to the com- 
munity. 

Were the question now to be agitated, Shall we safki the introduc- 
tion of slavery among us ? and more emphatically still. Shall we take 
measures to fiimish ourselves with domestic servants, by reducing to 
slavery some of our fellow-men, now free as ourselves ? the great law of 
love, and sound policy no less, would return a prompt reibsaL 

But with the question of originating slavery, ot of now first intro- 
dwang it here, we have, at present, nothing to do. The iustitutioa 
already exists among us, and, however it may have been originated, the 
only question for us to ponder is, How, under these circumstances, shall 
we act I Does the great law of love tbrbid slavery, and require its 
immediate extinction ? Does that law require that we, because we 
ourselves, now free, would not like to be reduced to slavery, should 
instantly set all our slaves free ? This the objector affirms : — this I do 
emphatically deny. 

If the law of love nom demands this, it must always have demajMied 
it, even in the days of Abraham and of Moees. Yet these hoiv men 
did not think so, as their practice and their laws show ; and those laws 
God himself sanctioned. Thus to interpret the law of love, is to ovei- 
straiu its meaning. That law requires us, not to aboiish the exisdug 
ranks and distinctions of condition in society, but to treat each posoa 
in a manner suited to our relative positions ; a mann^ such as, w^ie 
our positions reversed, we might personally desire he would en^loy in 



16 

treatincr us. That law requires the master, not to set his slaves free, 
(which would, in many instances, be the greatest unkindness he could 
show them,) but to treat them humanely and considerately ; to treat 
them as he, if himself a slave, could reasonably desire to be. treated 
while he was such. If I see a poor man suffering from want, the law of 
love requires me, not to strip myself of just one half my substance, and 
confer it upon him, but to extend to him assistance suited to his wants 
as a poor man, and to my ability in view of my position in society and 
the other claims upon me. 

That is a spurious benevolence which would aim to remove inequali- 
ties of condition in society. It is assuredly very different from the 
benevolence of God, which, pure and perfect though it is, tolerates 
great inequality of condition in society, and great suffering too, which. 
in our short-sighted wisdom, seems very undesirable ; and tolerates it al- 
though He is all powerful to remove it at a stroke, if to Him it seemed 
good so to do. 

The existence of slavery in society under ceriain circumstances, like 
that of poverty and pain and all the diversities of condition now found 
amon<T men, mav, in the view of Infinite Wisdom, be indispensable to 
the attainment of the greatest possible good. It may furnish an invaluable 
trial of character. Forbearance, self-control, justice and benevolence in 
owners; and patience, humility, fidelity, and deference to God's will, in 
servants, may be the fruits of this institution, where its appropriate duties 
are rio-htly discharged, which, in their effects on the character and 
the destinv of both masters and slaves hereafter, shall infinitely out- 
weigh all the numerous evils now springing from its existence. Thou- 
sands, both of masters and servants, may be constantly growing in 
excellence of character that shall fit them for higher seats and brighter 
alories in heaven, than were possible without this institution ; so that, 
many though its incident evils are, all shall hereafter see it was the 
highest benevolence in God to suffer it to exist : for " the wrath of man 
shall praise Him 1" 

However this may be, certain it is that the sudden introduction of 
any great change in society must be hazardous, and may be widely 
destructive. Common prudence and benevolence both require that 
before we attempt to effect such change, the probabilities should be very 
stroner that the change is practicable, £nd will be beneficial, not detri- 
mental. It is not enough that a patient be labouring under a disease 
which, if unremoved, must kill him, to n 'uce a skilful physician to 
resort to bold and desperate remedies. He must see a strong probability 
that the remedy will be safe and effectual : else, it were better to leave 



17 

ihe maladr to run its course, aad direct his efforts simply lo alleriaie 
pain, aad mitigate the several srinptoms as they occur, in hope of some 
change that may warrant a more direct interference. Hitherto no 
scheme for abolishing slavery has been suggested, that is not r^lete 
-with difficulties, threatening evils to both master and slave, far greater 
than the institution itself occasions. Until, therefore, seme plan shall 
be unfolded \7hich promises a safe as well as saccessfol issue, benero- 
lence, no less than prudence, demands that no movement be made. 
Every consideration seems to admonish us — " Be quiet : let this per- 
plexing matter rest untouched, and discharge each one his dutr to his 
servants, leaving the issue in the hands of God." The perplexities 
attending the management of British West India possessions at thig 
hoar, furnish an impressive warning on this subject.* Emancipation 
has there proved a signal failure, so far as the pro^>erity of the ctAo- 
nies, or the improvement (moral cr intellectual either) of the neoroes 
is concerned. The emancipated slaves in those islands are indolent, 
ignorant, and luxurious : and the fertile lands they encumber are fast 
returning to a wilderness, their products continuallv decreasinor. as 
the official returns show. 

- Sound policy and Christian benevolence do, then, both warn us to 
teware. So far from demandii^ the immediate emancipation of slaves, 
regardless of consequences, which, in the present condition of Southern 
society, could not but be eminently disastrous to all parties, the law of 
■Christian love still points to the necessity for leaving this rostitution 
undisturbed for the present : and it shows the reasonableness of requir- 
ing humanity and justice in masters, fidelity and submission in slaves; 
precisely as the in^ired Apostle taught, " Jtfasters. render unto your 
servants that ithich is Just and equah'^ And again : "' Let as many 
servants as are under the t/ol'? (this certainlv describes slaves) eount 
their otrn masters trorthy of all honour, that the name of God be not 
blasphemed, 6cc. nese things teaei and exhort. If any auni teach 
othentise. he is proud, knowing nothing. Sic. From such wtthdr-iw 
THTSELF." 1 Tim. 6 : 1—5. 

If the Bible is to be our guide on this subject,t then, instead of 

* See an mteresdng and veiy able amde beumg on tUs snl^ect. and cntideJ 

- Annexation of Texas," in the Soatfaem Quneiiy Review fcr Ocsober, 1S44. I: is 
said to be m>m the pen of a yoong bat distmgni^ied member of the Mofaik bar. 

t So &r ntim bowins to the teachings of leveiaiioo, the nltn abolitkiaBSts c£ oar 
daj efiace a ^uiit ot ondiagmsed infidelity. Tfaej are faitxo- and maKgnaitt. iLEsaa- 
ing, withoot prot^ or reason, diat siaveiy is evil, and contiaiy to tbe di c tates of reaaan 
and the law of lore, tber proceed to cany oat this assaned prinople, MteriT reckless 



18 

abolitionists excommunicating slaveholders, (as they openly do,) every 
abolitionist, every one who denies the authority of masters and their 
right to demand obedience and honour from their servants; every one 
who teaches that the slave is not bound to obey and honour his mas- 
ter, and who insists on the immediate abolition of slavery, is proud, 
knowing nothing ; he does not consent to wholesome doctrine, even to the 
tmrds of our Lord Jesus, and to the doctrine which is according to god- 
liness, — and he ought to be cut off from the communion of the 
CHURCH ; for, says the Apostle, from such unthdraw thyself. So utterly 
untrue is it that slavery is inconsistent with the law of love. 

These popular and oft-repeated objections being thus disposed of, 
we may safely maintain that a man may lawfully hold in bondage man 
like himself, to serve him. This institution is undeniably recognized 
in the Bible : it confers on the master certain rights, and it imposes on 
him also, certain peculiar obligations. 

The master has a right of property in his servant, so that he may use 
him, lend him, bequeath him, or even sell him to another.* But this right 

of consequences. When pressed by arguments drawn from the Bible, they attempt to 
evade them, by shamelessly per^'erting Scripture, and making it bend to their views 
by a forced interpretation. AVhen they find th«t still the authority of the Bible is, and 
ever must be, against them, they scruple not to deny its authority, and blaspheme its 
Author. An abolitionist, in a letter addressed to me while at the East last autumn, 
thus expresses himself: " Prove to me that the Almighiij God sanctions slavery, and 
you prove that He out-herods Herod, He out-juggernauts Juggernaut, He out-satan- 
izes Satan .'" Can such language be the dictate of piety and love ] 

The disorganizing tendency of the fundamental principle on which abolitionism rests 
is sufficiently apparent in the excesses into which many of the ultra abolitionists have 
rushed. They deny revelation, they desecrate the Sabbath, they repudiate the church 
and the Christian ministry ; nay, they would for ever blast the chief charm of woman, 
her retiring modesty, by teaching her to leave her proper sphere, refuse obedience, and 
demand equality with man, openly standing forth in large public assemblies, to speak, 
and argue as does man. Their fundamental position, that " all persons are on an entire 
equality ; that no one person can rightfully exercise authority over another, except 
so far as that other may he pleased to allow it;' is obviously irrational and dangerous. 
Fully carried out, it would destroy all distinctions in society, break up every family. 
and spread disorder, wretchedness, and guilt all around. It cannot, then, be true. 

* It is surprising to observe how strong, how enduring, how far-reaching, are the 
prejudices of even good and inteUigent men, respecting this subject. Some years 
since, when accosted by a well-known abolitionist, with reproaches as being guilty of 
countenancing slavery, and contributing to perpetuate the sin, by my residence at the 
South, I replied, that till he should convince me that slavery is a sin, all his admoni- 
tions were lost upon me ; and I added, " So far as sin is involved in the transaction, 1 
could, with as safe a conscience, purchase a good servant offered me, if I needed one, 
08 I coidd purrhane a horse, or any thing else." At this he expressed surprise and 



19 

of property is modified and restricted by the nature of the possession : a 
man's right in his landis one thing ; in his horse another, in his servant an- 
other. A man is not allowed to use his horse as he would a log of wood, 
though both be his own property : he cannot lawfully hack, and cut, and 
burn a horse as he might a log. The horse is his property to use for his 
own benefit, in any way consistent with its well-being as an animal ca- 
pable of suffering and of enjoyment. So also a master has the right of 
property in his servants, to use them for his own benefit, in any way 
consistent with their nature as human beings, not only sentient, like 
mere animals, but also as rational, as accountable beings, having im- 
mortal SOULS. A man may not lawfully use his servants as if they 
were mere animals, without souls, and irresponsible to God. He may 
have the power to do so, but he has not the right ; and no law can ever 

abhorrence. Some months later, in answer to the inquiries of a friend in New- York 
respecting my language in that conversation, I repeated this expression in my letter. 
That letter was shown to another noted abolitionist, and by him an extract containing 
the obnoxious passage was taken and published in several abolition papers at the North 
and East. This extract has been republished in various papers again and again, 
accompanied by sundry comments far from complimentary to my good sense, and my 
character for humanity and for piety. It is called a horrible sentiment, language out- 
rageous, indicative of a mind blinded, a heart hardened and a conscience already seared. 
Of one distinguished minister at the North it is said, he declared he would never again 
ask me to occupy his pulpit, since I had uttered sentiments so atrocious : of another 
it is affirmed that, when told I had so expressed myself, he said he regretted I had 
preached in his pulpit, but that he would never ask me again. Only last week, I received 
by mail a paper printed at Hartford, Conn., containing a republication of the obnoxious 
declaration, together with a pointed intimation that I am morally blinded and hardened, 
not fit to enjoy fellowship with any church. Now, why all this outcry? What is there 
so outrageous in the expression I used ? The point of comparison was, not the nature 
or the qualities of a slave and a horse, not the uses to which they might be put ; but 
simply and only the morality of the act of purchasing the one or the other. The most 
that can be charged upon me is, perhaps, a disregard of good taste in the selection of 
the object of comparison. It might have been less offensive to a fastidious delicacy, 
had I, in that hurried conversation, spoken of buying a house or a Bible, instead of a 
horse ; but that is all. There either is sin in slavery, or there is not. Where slavery 
exists, the right to property in a slave may be sold. The purchase of that right is 
either sinful, or it is not : if not, then there is no more sin in the mere act of purchasing 
a servant, than there is in any other purchase, no matter what. The point of com- 
parison is, the morality of the act of purchasing ; not the use to which what is pur- 
chased is to be put. And yet, because, to convey clearly the idea of my conviction 
that to such purchase no sin appertains, I happened to select an object for comparison 
not perhaps in the most refined taste, I am denounced and extensively published as a 
hard-hearted, unfeeling monster ; just as though I had said that a fellow-man, even if a 
true Christian, when held in bondage, is no better than a horse, and may lawfully be 
treated like a beast ! 



invest him with diut right. So to treat servants is to oppress ihetti 

cruelly. 

A master is entitled, 1, To all the service jvhich thejimc, the strength^ 
or the skill of his sertxxnt, may qtmlify kirn to render. 

This is implied in the very nature of the servile relation. The ser- 
vant is the property of his master, so far as that his labour, or his skill 
in any useful art, must be honestly given for the benefit of his master,, 
a* if it were for himself'"' doing service tnth good loill ; not with eye" 
service, as man-plcasers, bitt as reiuUring service unto God." 

A master is entitled to claim from his servants, 2, Fidelity to his 
interests. The servant belongs to his master, and is identified with his 
master's interests. If the master prosper, the servant is benefited : if 
the master suffer loss, the servant's interests will be affected by that 
loss. A rio-ht view of his relations would teach a servant, that he can- 
not sunder his interesis from those of his master ; an<l that he is bound 
by the command of God himself, to serve bis master with all fidelity, 
and to labour for the advancement of his master's interests, as he would 
for his own. 

The master is entitled, 3, To respect and attachment from his ser- 
vants. This is emphatically enjoined in God's holy word. Ephes. 
6:5 7 : " Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according 
to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto 
Christ. With good wmll doing service, as to the Lord, and not unt& 
men!" Words coiild not more fully express the duty of respectful obe- 
dience ai"Hi cordial attachment, from servants to masters. And to this 
affectionate obedience an upright and intelligent master is fully entitled 
He is the best and nearest friend to his servants : he stands to them, in 
many important respects, in the place of a father : and they owe to him 
fidelity, honesty, cheerful obedience, and firm attachment, not purloin- 
ing, not answering again!" An ungrateful, idle, or sullen servant is 
not a Christian. A rebellious, plotting, mischief-making servant is not, 
and cannot be a Christian, however loud his professions of piety. 

But it is equally true that the master owes certain returns to his ser- 
vants. 

1, He is to yield them an adequate and a comfortable support. The 
servant devotes his whole time and labour to the master : in return, that 
master is bound to give him a competent support, i. e. to feed, to clothe 
and to lodge the servant and his whole family. It is just and equal that 
a full support be given to the servant, and a comfortable support, suited 
in all respects to his wants as a human being devoted to labour. This 
support includes suitable care and attendance in sickness, and all needed 



21 

provision when by age or infirmity disabled rroni work. An unfeeling, 
cruel master, who over-works his servants, or who allows them not a 
sufficiency of food, shelter, and clothing, is withholding from them that 
which is just and equal, and he cannot be a Christian. 

But the master owes to his servants, 2, Kind and considerate treat' 
ment. Kindness is due from us to all men, but especially should it tem- 
per the authority we exercise over those subjected to our control : so 
says the inspired Apostle. " Ye masters ! do the same things unto them, 
forbearing threatening ; knoicing that your Master, also, is in heaven. 
Neither is there respect of persons with him." Eph. 6:9. A rash, bois- 
terous, passionate, or vindictive master is a great affliction to faithful 
servants. A master has, it is true, the potcer to treat his servants harsh- 
ly, but he has not the right : and if he does so treat them, he is not a 
Christian ; he is flying in the very teeth of God's law, and trampling 
its precepts under foot. But a master owes to his servants, 

3, Due instruction and care for their morals, even if this life only 
be contemplated. 

Our servants are human beings, our fellow men : of different com- 
plexion from us, it is true ; but they are men, like ourselves, subject to 
God's law, conscious of the difference between right and wrong, and 
responsible for their actions. Neither the negro nor the white man 
can be truly happy, nor useful to the entire extent of his capacity, with- 
out due moral training. Our servar.ts are entitled to receive at our 
hands faithful, regular, and minute instruction, and that from their ear- 
liest childhood, up to maturity, even to old age, and in all that per- 
tains to good conduct and pure morals. On this point I am painfully 
convinced there is a great defect in the practice of the church. 

Wicked men, who are reckless in their own conduct, may be ex- 
pected to neglect the moral instruction of their slaves, for they neglect 
the instruction of their own children. But a Christian master is bound 
to regard his slaves as moral agents, whose well being depends on their 
own conduct, and whose conduct will flow from the principles he instils 
into them, or allows them to imbibe, Servants, just as regularly and 
as faithfully as our children, ought to be instructed in all moral duties, 
such as honesty, truth, industry, temperance, chastity, and self govern- 
ment in all respects. When guilty of a sin, they should be admonished ; 
and, if need be, corrected, with kindness, but with inflexible firmness. 
Nothing would tend more to improve the moral character, and the entire 
condition of servants ; nothing would contribute more fully, in the long 
run, to increase their value as servants, (because it would cherish all 
the virtues which make their service to be depended on,) than would the 



22 

recognizing, by law, of the marriage of negroes ; and surrounding the 
domestic relations of our servants with a bulwark as sacred, as that 
which protects our own families. So long as the marriage tie among 
negroes continues, as now, a mere legal nullity, the husband and wife, 
the parents and children, may, at any moment, be sundered hopelessly 
and for ever,* at the caprice of the master, or at the demand of his cred- 
itors, or at the pleasure of the administrators of his estate. This is 
wrong, it is an outrage to hnmaniti/, it is an insult to God ! — I am not 
guilty of sedition in thus expressing myself. I am but exercising a 
right appertaining to each and every citizen, that of discussing the merits 
of public measures and public enactments. If I deem a law unjust, un- 
constitutional, or impolitic, I have a right to say so, at any time and on 
any occasion, and to state also my reasons for desiring an alteration of 
the law. Our laws are defective in omitting to sanction the marriage 
of slaves, so that the marriage tie among them may be deemed equally 
sacred with that among freemen. The omission is of injurious ten- 
dency ; and I am persuaded that a large proportion of our respectable 
slaveholders so regard it, and they would gladly sanction the amend- 
ment of the law, if any one would but have the firmness to step forward 
and propose it in due place and form. The man who shall do this — 
and carry it through successfully — will entitle himself to the veneration 
and gratitude of generations yet unborn. Such an alteration in our 
laws would speedily correct the loose notions now prevailing among ne- 
groes on this subject. It would bind the negroes together in strong 
family ties, it would endear them to each other, and attach them to their 
masters. It would supply powerful motives to chastity and self-respect 
among servants, and it would awaken in the bosom of parents among 
them, a desire to train their children up under suitable moral restraints, 
that thev may become good and orderly and respectable. An honest, 
faithful, and virtuous servant is as truly entitled to respect, as the weal- 
thy and perhaps accomplished master ; for, in his humble sphere, hs 
bows to the will of God, and does his duty. And what can the best 
among us all do more? " With God there is no respect of persons" 
Master and servant are alike responsible to him. 

Careful instruction in every moral duty, and the employment of all 
suitable influences to induce him to he moral, the master owes to his 

* It is trae this can be done ; and in cases o^he administration of an estate, and 
of the emigration of families to distant places, it is often done. But it is also true that 
the feeling in the community is strong against it, and great care is usually taken 
to avoid this separation of families. But the law ought to interpose an effectual 
prohibition. 



servants. One of the surest means to promote this great object wooid 
be found, I am persuaded, in the legalization of marriage amon^ them. 
The mercenary creditor, the hardened trafficker in human sinews, and 
the devotee of a loathsome licentiousness, might clamour in opposition, 
but not, I should suppose, the intelligent, the upright, the c^enerous- 
spirited master, who has the best interests of hia servants at heart. 

4. The master owes to his slaves all practicable facilities for secur- 
ing their eternal salvation. 

The masters rights are bounded bv the grave, but his responsibili- 
ties overleap that barrier, and stretch onward through etemitv. The 
slave has a soul like yours or mine ; and for his salvation, as trulv as 
for yours or mine, the Redeemer died. A master has no right to perU 
his slaves' prospects for the life to come. The slave has a risht to be 
so treated that he may learn to live honestly, virtxiouslv, and respect- 
ably here, and may enjoy every possible advantage for securing eternal 
life in heaven hereafter. Religious instruction from the Bible, and that 
from early childhood, every servant is entitled to receive from his mas- 
ter, together with the rest furnished by a weekly Sabbath, and all suit- 
able facilities for attending the public worship of God. If the master 
is entitled to the labour of his servant during six davs, God claims the 
seventh day for observance as a Sabbath : a day of sacred rest to vour 
man-servant, and your maid-servant, as well as to yourself and vour 
cattle. Every master is bound by the very nature of the relation he 
sustains to his servants, to see to it that they receive suitable religious 
instruction, that they rest on the Sabbath, and that they be encourao-ed. 
nay required, to attend seriously on the public worship of God. Were 
this required of every servant, (as it ought to be,) and were the duty 
always enforced by the master's own example in the family, and in the 
house of God each Sabbath: what a different appearance would South- 
em society present I Masters would be honoured and loved bv their 
servants, as their true friends ; and servants would, as a bodv, be con- 
tented, industrious, orderly, virtuous, and happy. The servant would 
regard himself as a constituent part of his master's family, and he would 
be so regarded and so treated by his master. Abraham so treated his 
servants ; he brought them into covenant with God. The serrants born 
in his house, and those bought with his money, he circumcised. Gen. 17 : 
12, 13, 23 ; and by so doing he pledged himself to instruct, and to 
require his servants to keep the law of God. The Mosaic law contem- 
plated this ; for the bond-servant of a priest might eat of the sacred 
offerings, just as one of the priest's own family might do. In everv 
Hebrew family also, their bond-servants, whether inherited or bought 



24 

with uionev, were required to bt circuunised : and were also allowed to 
partake of the passover, Exod. 12 : 44 : comp. Gen. 17 : 12, 13. In like 
manner, (since baptism holds in the gospel church the very place that 
circumcision did in the Jewish,) Christian masters ought to have all 
their servants, just as their children, baptized, carefully instructed, and 
trained for adoiission to God's church. Thus to treat servants is giv- 
ing to than that trhicJi is just end equal, as to immortal beings. This 
duty is enforced on masters by the consideration, that " thci/ oho have 
a Master in Jieave?!/' 

Yes, true it is, we may be legally entitled to certain services from 
those whose masters we are, but we too have a Master in heaven, who 
claims our service, in the use of every talent we possess in compliance 
with his will. For all, we must render to Him a strict account, and 
for the manner in which we have treated our servants, no less than for 
the manner in which we have personally improved or abused our own 
reliffious privileges. Happy and blessed is the man, who like the holy 
patriarch of old, trains his entire household, servants no less than 
children, in the fear of God. 

But wo to the selfish and unthinking master, who, (however liberal 
the provision he makes for the present comfort of his slaves,) puts it 
out of their power to learn how they may become reconciled to God 
and save their souls. The man who wantonly kills a servant, is a mur- 
derer. He who shuts out his servants from a knowledge of salvation 
through Jesus Christ, is a murderer of souls, and he must meet a dread 
responsibility at the bar of God ; whose high command is, Masters 
give unto your servants that ichieh is just and equal ; l-notring that ye 
also have a Master in heaven. Amen. 



54 W 




* J^ ^^ "-^v^^ 4-^"' % -J^ 










^V 



